Going where Congress was too dysfunctional to tread, states are passing immigration measures that are all over the map from welcoming to punishing. A Washington Post article noted that in response to tough new Oklahoma laws on transportation and employment of illegal immigrants and more, as many as 25,000 undocumented workers have fled the state. And not for south of the border: “They’re going to Texas, New Mexico, Kansas, Arkansas, anywhere where the laws aren’t against them,” said a leader of the Oklahoma State Home Builders Association. Such a report will only strengthen Kansas lawmakers’ resolve to mimic Oklahoma next session, when it should be seen as a cry for help to Congress and the federal government — the true authorities on immigration.
Posted by Rhonda Holman
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
49 Comments
The federal government doesn’t want to do deal with. If they did, we wouldn’t be having these problems now. If immigration laws had been upheld, instead of ignored for all the various reasons there are, there’d be no reason for states to have to take matters into their own hands.
And we might as well face the fact that we have become a bilingual country.
Yes, that is why we need to implement the Oklahoma law here. I have asked our police and county admin to get Section 287g training for law enforcement. It allows them to enforce immigration law and would be helpful with the gang issue along with their current RICO use.
Tulsa is having great success with their new 287g training
http://www.ktul.com/news/stories/0807/449251.html
and the threat of the new laws have helped greatly by reducing the illegal by some 25,000 with more leaving as we speak…Hurrah…http://www.ktul.com/news/stories/0807/449699.html
I have been talking with some of our local legislators and they are being beaten up bad at home over the illegal alien situation. There will very likely be some movement on this issue here in Kansas next session.
I have provided research Ive been doing for some time to some local reps already.
Hopefully it will soon be very unfriendly to be here illegally. We hope to stop the nonsense of Kansas violating Federal law by giving out INSTATE tuition to illegals.
Hopefully someone will use a provision in the 1996 Immigration act that allows PRIVATE citizens to institute a RICO action and bring such a RICO case against the state for the “furtherance of a criminal action” and get them involved in a RICO statutes that allows TREBLE damages to every resident harmed in the state.
Funny how the States are now taking up the responsibilities of the Federal Government, while the Federal Government continues to mess with issues that belong to the States.
One screwed-up Government we have.
Excellent thoughts on invoking the RICO actions mrbill. Haven’t really thought about that way of approaching the problem.
Truth is, if the laws on the books for the Federal Government were applied, the illegal alien problem would be mostly solved.
I know the “carrot and stick” approach doesn’t always work, but I do agree with the sense of the idea that if State Governments have laws contrary to the Federal laws that encourage illegal immigration, then Federal funds should be withheld.
When state governments start getting hit in the “pocketbook” their respective Legislators start paying attention.
Being as how the ex-president of mexico thinks it’s this country’s fault we have an immigration problem, perhaps all states should pass laws similar to oklahoma’s. With all the mexicans running for the border, maybe they’ll stick around and dump the archaic society running mexico in favor of one more tuned to helping its own people.
Having spent time in Mexico, I can see why people leave it in droves.
How long before the race card, the tool of those who have no substantive arguement, comes flying in?
Stumper, did you see Fox on Bill Maher last Friday?
Loved the stallion story!
Heckler,This has nothing to do with race. It has to do with laws.
Rox
I agree, unfortunately some don’t.
Our federal government in incapable of acting. They cannot even pass the appropriation bills that they should have passed by 1 October to fund the government and its programs through 2008. Heck, the democrats campaigned about the lazy republicans not passing the 2007, and now look at the democrats acting just the same.
Someone has to act, and why
not the states? Funding the illegals problems are falling on our states shoulders: education costs, social services, increased criminal costs, etc…..
What do you expect states to do when the federal government is totally dysfunctional.
“Hopefully it will soon be very unfriendly to be here illegally. We hope to stop the nonsense of Kansas violating Federal law by giving out INSTATE tuition to illegals.
Hopefully someone will use a provision in the 1996 Immigration act that allows PRIVATE citizens to institute a RICO action and bring such a RICO case against the state for the “furtherance of a criminal action” and get them involved in a RICO statutes that allows TREBLE damages to every resident harmed in the state.mrbill”
mrbill:No citizen of Kansas is harmed by the instate tiution issue. In state tiution is still given to in state students.
God forbid we give the kids a chance to add to our quality of life, lets beat the hell out of them too!
“Hopefully it will soon be very unfriendly to be here illegally. We hope to stop the nonsense of Kansas violating Federal law by giving out INSTATE tuition to illegals.
Hopefully someone will use a provision in the 1996 Immigration act that allows PRIVATE citizens to institute a RICO action and bring such a RICO case against the state for the “furtherance of a criminal action” and get them involved in a RICO statutes that allows TREBLE damages to every resident harmed in the state.mrbill”
mrbill:No citizen of Kansas is harmed by the instate tiution issue. In state tiution is still given to in state students.
God forbid we give the kids a chance to add to our quality of life, lets beat the hell out of them too!
No citizen of Kansas is harmed by the instate tiution issue. In state tiution is still given to in state students.
Posted by: poster boy
You miss the point of the original post. It is important to NOT have these programs in order to discourage ILLEGAL CRIMINALS from coming to Kansas.
I don’t want ANY programs to assist ILLEGAL CRIMINALS to INVADE our state.
And my brothers in Missouri and Iowa should get IN-STATE Tuition in Kansas, when they move here legally for one day.
Any legal citizen should get better treatment than an illegal criminal who should NOT EVEN BE IN OUR HIGHER EDUCATION FACILITIES.
They should be sent back w/their parents.
In fact, I’m writing OHS, to ensure we have an INS agent at registration. Get the criminals on day one.
Heckler, I’ve been called a racist by a few fellow liberals. I see what you were getting at in your first comment.
But I’ll be honest. I’m becoming racist as time goes on, catching myself thinking things that are not normal for me. And only because I’m fed up with the feds turning a blind eye to illegals and the laws on the books. And I mean feds in both parties.
Well,
Prejudice is either taught by an adult or learned by experience.
I share the same feelings as you Rox.
I heard the other day that fruit growers were having problems finding labor. Better border enforcement here lately ya know.
The farmers had to GASP! start offering higher wages!
We do these poor folks no favors by subsidizing the continued corruption and failure of their country.
Immigration across the Mexican border is a question of population dynamics and won’t be solved by people who can’t admit biology and human nature supersede law. How well have our drug laws done in preventing drug use/distribution by the way? Biology/human nature always trumps law unless law becomes inhuman. We could just kill them all. Right? Thirty percent would be for it.
Seems like right-wingnuts always whine about playing the Race Card because that’s the one they have up their sleeve.
Recently a subversive plot by Republic Party regulars has come to light in Phoenix. GOP-paid callers target people with Hispanic names and offer to help them register to vote. They then turn in only those registration applications of *legal* aliens (who, of course, do not have the right to vote,) and whose applications are rejected. The same callers then encourage thier victims to apply for citizenship. But guess what? Attempting to register to vote when you’re not a citizen is a crime that’s been used by Republic Party judges as the basis to deny applicants’ attempt to become citizens!
Apparently it’s been going on for years and is just starting to lead to indictments against Republic Party officials. The GOP claims the scheme is not illegal, and they’ve presented some evidence that might sustain them. Most certainly it is *extra-legal* and definitely it’s a stinky way to treat democracy.
Look, the only-est reason illegal workers come from South of the Border into the United States is because they’ll be hired *illegally* by white Republic Party business-owners. Where is the outrage against the white people who hire “illegally?”
“human nature supersede law.” Door King
Wow! That’s pretty profound.You just make that up or copy it from somewhere?
It’s also the words of an idiot.
Kill them?
Well no.
I would not be against well informing the Mexican government in advance, posting ample notification, and placing land mines on our border.
I think we are among the few countries that do not do so.
We address this problem or we lose our way of life. It’s that simple.
J R,
I wasn’t taught to be prejudiced regarding race, religion, or social status. And I grew up during segregation!
If I rob a bank to pay my bills (giving me a better life), no one is going to take pity on me for breaking the law, and I will pay the penalty, probably with jail time. But if an illegal breaks the law by entering the country, a blind eye is turned, because “they work cheap!”
And, yes, I’ll pay more for fruits and vegetables, if that’s what it takes, but I don’t see a lot of pickers here in Wichita.
Moneyhawk, your example is not one of racism. Although I’d like to see a link to the source, it sounds like a very effective method to peacefully capture illegal criminals in their community. The fact is, most of the illegals/criminals in the SW are of what race?
Why are some of you trying so hard to turn this into a race issue?
It’s not about race at all.
Look, the only-est reason illegal workers come from South of the Border into the United States is because they’ll be hired *illegally* by white Republic Party business-owners. Where is the outrage against the white people who hire “illegally?”
Posted by: MonkeyHawk | October 15, 2007 at 03:47 PM
I would like to see your source for this claim.
Illegal Okies coming to Kansas? What will they think of next?
We have laws against pot and people still smoke it, Pat. That’s human nature superceding law. You think the law makes any difference in the way humans behave? If you do, you’re a poor observer. However, I will admit some people follow the rules no matter how idiotic. We call those people Republicans and their religion Fundamentalism.
Some thoughts on illegal immigration:
Providing instate tuition does hurt Kansas students who are American citizens. In-state tuition only covers roughly half the cost of education. So the money used to subsidize illegal aliens’ higher education could instead be used to provide scholarship money for Kansas-citizen students who can’t afford even instate tuition, i.e. socioeconomically-disadvantaged white and black students.
If we must prioritize educational expenditures, as we must, who should receive priority? Citizens or illegal aliens?
Now, anchor children born in the U.S. of illegal aliens are American citizens, so they get instate tuition. The Constitution assures this.
On free K-12 education, the federal courts have issued unconstitutional rulings. The states are not required, and have no authority to provide free education paid for by American citizens to illegal aliens.
Why is this evil? Because, American citizens don’t have unlimited funds. We have an enormous burden just trying to bring black students’ knowledge acquisition opportunities to white students’ levels, and all socioeconomically-disadvantaged American childrens’ knowledge acquisition opportunities to middle-class and affluent children’s levels.
These are constitutional principles. The courts have acted fecklessly in dumping illegal-alien students on our schools. Because these children don’t speak English, extraordinary resources must be diverted to train them to speak and write in English. This is money that should be used to educate American children better. The non-English speakers’ presence in classrooms retards the pace of education of English-spoken-at-home natives.
So American citizens’ children’s education is damaged in two negatively synergistic ways. The courts have no authority to damage the education of American citizens. If judges and SCOTUS justices harm American citizens to benefit aliens, they need to be impeached and removed from the bench. If a majority of any state’s citizens want to fund and provide an education to illegal aliens, they can lobby for this, and elect representatives who act accordingly. This is not the courts’ prerogative.
Judges, particularly SCOTUS justices, are strict constructionists when they want to be, and liberal constructionists when they want to be. They have long applied reasoned principles to limit or expand the constitution, out of accord with the framers’ original intent, but in accord with what they believe to be in the national interest.
Consider Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.
Does this mean that the Constitution guarantees citizenship to the children of illegal aliens? No. The principle of lawful arrival of parents can be applied here, with their children being granted citizenship. On the other hand, the attempt to gain benefits through the commission of a crime can assuredly be repudiated.
If this latter principle were applied by the courts, and ultimately the SCOTUS, the only protesters would be the crime committers and a small segment of the American-citizen populace that wants to exploit the crime committers–and in the process, injure millions of American citizens who find themselves competing with illegal aliens for jobs, and find their wages being trimmed to comport with those acceptable to the aliens.
The principle that the Fourteenth Amendment’s exclusive intent, at the time of its framing and passage, was to confer citizenship rights solely upon recently freed slaves, and their progeny, can be applied: i.e. the Amendment was never intended to encourage criminal penetration of our borders.
Only good illegal is a dead one
Immigration is such a mess.
The Democrats want all those votes and will get them.
The Republicans want all those votes, but are stupid enough to think they will get them.
Meanwhile the people want something done about illegal immigration.
Some people are absolutely obsessed with making immigrants the scapegoat for every ill in the country. Actually, on the whole they contribute positively to our economy. And, yes, when a significant majority are Hispanic, and when people like MPS say “only good illegal is a dead one” that is absolutely racist hate speech, and perhaps should be construed as a violent threat. I do not say that all people who want to restrict immigration are racists, but some most assuredly are, and this debate is bringing out the worst in them.
Mmmm, good! The Rude Pundit calls out Rudy “I sure did support illegal immigration back in 1997″ Giuliani. Them’s some tasty biscuits, ah tell yew wuht…**********************************
“10/15/2007
Hey, Conservative Rudy Lovers: Read What He Wrote About Illegal Immgrants in 1997:
The Rude Pundit has not made it a secret that he despises Rudy Giuliani. He can’t figure out why the hell Giuliani’s running for President other than ego, the chance to pardon Bernard Kerik before Kerik goes all state’s evidence on Giuliani, and a sad attempt to keep impressing his needy-ass third wife. Really, it makes more goddamn sense for Tom Tancredo to run. At least he’s got a principle or two to stand on, odious though those principles may be.
Giuliani has demonstrated that he is a weak, pathetic political animal, willing to abandon any sane beliefs he had in order to desperately pander to the rabid, frothing herd of deranged core conservative voters. He’s zigged on abortion, zagged on gay rights, and on treatment of illegal immigrants, he’s punked out totally. Giuliani was just endorsed by former California Governor Pete “No Education for Illegal Immigrant Children” Wilson, creating some kind of cretinous tear in the fabric of humanity.
Mitt Romney and Giuliani, two pink-dressed girls whose slap fights are comically entertaining, got into it during the summer over illegal immigration, with Romney accusing Giuliani of making New York City into a safe haven for illegals. Giuliani said he no like lawbreakers. But let’s let 1997 Giuliani do the talking here
In a strangely unmentioned Wall Street Journal editorial from January 9, 1997 titled “Keep America’s Door Open,” Giuliani wrote about what he saw as the proper treatment of illegal immigrants in a way that most non-Kucinich Democrats couldn’t get away with now:
“Why shouldn’t city employees turn undocumented immigrants over to the INS? Because if immigrants fear being caught and deported, they will avoid the police, hospitals and schools–to the detriment of the entire city. If the federal government fails to fulfill its responsibility to keep undocumented immigrants out of the U.S., then we must afford them certain protections to preserve the health and safety of all Americans.
“A criminal who victimizes an undocumented immigrant might attack a legal resident next. Discouraging the reporting of crimes would make it more difficult for the police to track criminal activity. New York now leads the nation in crime reduction, but we cannot catch criminals, prevent crime and protect the public if we don’t have accurate information about where and when crimes are occurring.
“Immigrants who fail to seek medical care for fear of deportation also pose a substantial danger to the general public. The misguided new federal law could result in the spread of serious communicable diseases that might easily have been contained if diagnosed and treated early.”
(Remember, by the way, that this seemingly rational approach to the place of illegal immigrants in urban America was written by the current leading Republican presidential candidate. Alas, sweet flip-floppery. But let Rudy continue here.)
“And parents who fear deportation might not send their children to public schools. If not in school, some 80,000 children of undocumented immigrants would be on the streets of New York or left alone in apartments. Not only would they suffer irreversible damage, but so many unsupervised children would endanger public safety in the entire city.
“What’s more, there is no indication that vastly increasing the number of names reported to the INS would even lead to substantially more deportations. The federal government seldom deports undocumented immigrants, even when the INS has established their identities. In New York City, which has an estimated 400,000 undocumented immigrants, only about 1,500 are deported each year. While the recently enacted illegal-immigration law provides new funding for deportation, still less than 1% of the undocumented immigrants already in New York would be deported each year. If the federal government wants to stop illegal immigration, it should work diplomatically with other governments and better secure our national borders, not endanger public safety by recklessly denying critical services to people already here.”
There you go, conservatives, who think you wanna go with Rudy. Pre-9/11, before he went even madder with power, Giuliani believed we should all pay for health care and education and police protection for illegal immigrants. Sure, there’s a certain amount of buck-passing, blaming the federal government, but in our current rhetoric about immigration, was not Giuliani encouraging illegal immigration?
Indeed, if you are a conservative so concerned about the issue, would it not seem that when Giuliani was mayor of New York, he actually made the problem worse?”
rudepundit.blogspot.com
gmc70,
If that is a sarcastic response to what I said, you didn’t understand my post. Let’s consider WSU attendance costs for an at-home-residing Kansas citizen. This is $5280 for the tuition and fees, for a 30-semester-hour freshman year. Add $200 for books, assuming buy-used, sell more-used.
Take a Kansas citizen born of a broken home, albeit parents are citizens. Trying to do better than his or her ill-educated parents. A 21st-century version of former mayor, Bob Knight, except this new hypothetical student wasn’t completely left to fend for himself/herself at age 15, and WSU no longer offers close-to-free tuition, as it did 45 years ago.
Suppose this hypothetical student has two younger sibs, and his/her mother has no capacity to provide money for this student’s education.
Suppose this student is willing to apply $3000 from his or her minimum-wage job to WSU-attendance expenses, including transportation.
I think it is correct to give this American Kansas-citizen student financial aid as a priority over providing instate resident tuition to an illegal alien. A private university can do whatever it wants in selecting students and providing non-government-source financial aid. But a public education institution must serve American citizens first and foremost.
In essence, EVERY WSU student receives state financial aid, in the form of the difference between instructional cost and charged tuition. So every illegal alien paying instate-resident tuition receives financial aid.
The truth is, nonresident tuition is higher than instructional cost. So nonresidents, primarily international legal student-visa possessing visitors, subsidize Kansas residents’ educational costs. But nowhere close to fully. If illegal aliens were charged exactly their instructional costs, i.e. less than current nonresident tuition, but higher than instate-resident tuition, this might be reasonable. But taxpayers’ subsidizing illegal aliens’ higher education costs, when citizens cannot afford to attend, without more state financial grant aid than is currently available, is arguably unfair to our own young citizens.
Robert,
You DO know the difference between the terms “legal” and “illegal”, right?
We’re discussing ILlegal immigrants, not legal immigrants.
We have an immigration system that allows a set number of immigrants from other countries to come into the U.S. and apply for citizenship or work visa or student visa. No problem there.
The others are breaking the law. Period. Is it okay with you if people break the law? Can I steal your car? Would that be okay?
MPS,
I’m pretty sure that’s a troll using “gmc70.”
The real GMC70 uses capital letters I believe, “GMC70.”
Kansas, I think you may be right about gmc70 being a troll.
Robert, learn to slow down and READ CAREFULLY, so you don’t make FALSE ACCUSATIONS. Because I have publicly identified my true identity on WEBLog, your statement is legally actionable as libel, unless you retract your statement, and tell readers that you made a faulty reading.
Robert, I am giving you the opportunity to issue an “I made a reading error” retraction. If you fail to do this, my attorney will file a neglegent defamation action, to which your attorney, if my attorney can determine your identity will say to you, “You really should have read better, you’re going to have to pay damages for your clearly false ‘hit and run’ post.
If my attorney subpoenas McClatchy / Eagle, and it is shown that you with a friend or or you alone, d decided you were “really smart” and posted the “only good illegal is a dead one” followed by deliberately misattributing you statement to me, what do you think you get? A $100,000 plus malicious defamation judgment against you.
Malice multiplies damages in a court of law. Your attorney will advise you that you have not leg to stand on, you were really stupid.
If you are “really smart” and used university and/or other servers, but nevertheless my attoreney finds your little PC, your defense attorney is going to advise you, “You screwed yourself. What were you thinking?”
If you think you are “really. really brilliant” and your identity is unable to be determined by McClatchy, the Eagle will be forced to publish, “MPS, Dr. Mark P. Schooley, was fraudulently defamed on our website by a person or persons whose identy or identities cannot be determined. We are sorry for this defamation against Dr. Schooley by fraud-perpetrating individuals.”
Now, if this occurs, and if it happens again, McCatchy will shut dowm WEBlog. How many WEBlog readers and posters want this to happen?
Right or left, those of you who want this forum to continue, read my posts, and “Robert’s” falllacious reading, or deliberate defamation, and post your rejection of what he / she said.
The States are unified under one nation, under one government.However, is the one government unified with the States?States taking actions on their own could signal a division or the tantamount of the situation is so great that the one government is unable to remedy the problem.Do we suffer as a nation because of one State’s actions.
MPS: You aren’t you, you idiot. You are an alias. You have no existence in law, and can’t be defamed.
Door King, you’re mistaken. Many people here know who I am, essentially all the long-resident WEBlog readers and posters, because Apophis prodded me to reveal my identity in order to verify my claim of being a retired medical doctor. He checked my claim and corroborated it. If Robert didn’t know my name, that wouldn’t create immunity. Had I not previously revealed my identity to dozens, and perhaps hundreds of people, then Robert could say whatever he liked about a phantom with the nic MPS, because my reputation as a real person could not be harmed.
Your calling me “you idiot” isn’t libel, since that is a constitutionally protected expression of OPINION.
But Robert made an allegation of FACT:
” when people like MPS say “only good illegal is a dead one” that is absolutely racist hate speech, and perhaps should be construed as a violent threat.” October 15, 6:57.
The above statement can be construed as either:”people like MPS” means that I specifically said “only…”
or that somebody else made the statement , but I hold the same view.
Either of those interpretations, which are logically the only two possible, represents an allegation of fact, the first that I said something, the other that my state of mind, represented by what I have actually written, supports the statement.
Door King, let’s test your reading skills. Read my 5:51 PM post. Would you conclude that I either said, or hold the “only…” sentiment? A reasonable man (or woman) would conclude there is no evidence to support this.
Your calling me “you idiot” isn’t libel, since that is a constitutionally protected expression of OPINION. MPS
You are an idiot. Are so old that your mind is starting to fade away?
Door King I could call you an idiot, and it might stick.
1. My brother-in-law is a Mexican-American. He’s a good man. He’s a great husband to my sister. They’ve got a couple of brown kids–my niece and nephew. We used to join my brother-in-law, his brothers, aunts and uncles at his uncle’s house at Christmas, and had a wonderful time. We were treated as members of the same family.
2. I grew up with Mexican-immigrant kids in my neighborhood. We played together. I ate meals with them.
3. I WORKED with Mexicans picking strawberries, cutting broccoli and loading lettuce trucks (the last as a 4-man team, me the only Anglo).
4. We used to go to Mexico every fall. We took clothes to them, used, but in very good condition. Why? Because Baja Californios don’t have a lot of money to buy clothes. When an elderly fisherman gave me a beautiful murex shell, I reciprocated: a twice-used Penn 3.0 deep-sea reel. Why? It would have mostly sat in my garage, while he could get good use out of it every day to make his living. We used to go fishing in pangas. I tipped the owners and their hands generously. They were very nice to us, and I wanted to support their work. Their knowledge of the ocean was amazing.
5. We lived at one time in a mixed neighborhood. An illegal immigrant was my friend. We drank beers together. His son painted a small barn I owned, using my newly-purchased $400 paint sprayer, that I had bought and used to paint my house’s interior, my brushes and paint. It took him about 30 man hours. My payment in trade to my friend: the sprayer and brushes.
I also gave him excellent-condition radial saw and good-condition shop vac as gifts. Why did I do this? My neighbor was a handyman. I knew my tools, in his capable hands, would help him provide for his family. He would use my tools to teach his sons.
Did my neighbor give me anything? A beautiful chicken. He bred and raised them. He didn’t have a lot to give, in a material sense, but the gift was from his heart. It was a sacrifice, because it represented giving up nourishment to his family that he had painstakingly worked to give them. You could not talk with this man without feeling joy, and wishing him success. At least I couldn’t.
BTW, my wife has saved the lives of probably several hundred children of illegal immigrants. She gives them the same level of medical care as she does all her patients: her very best.
I’ve spent a lot of time with Mexicans. Comprende? Do you think I would do that if I didn’t deeply like them?
I have previously argued here that giving them low tuition would benefit Kansas. If we could shut the border tomorrow, I’d say we should pay for illegal aliens’ higher education. But as things stand, this is impossible. Giving out subsidized public services attracts more illegal aliens.
I have had to rethink matters, because our resources are strained beyond the breaking point for our own citizens who rely on public-funded services such as schools, public universities and Medicaid.
It doesn’t matter that I can’t ever remember having a single bad relationship with a Mexican, but more fond memories than I can count, while I can remember more than a few unpleasant relationships with white Americans. There was one occasion where a Mexican driver in California crashed into my son, who was driving my car. He had a DL, and my son took down the address, but it was for a tony beachtown apartment, and the residents were lily white. I never met the driver, so I can’t say we had a relationship. Apparently the DL was a forgery. A $2000 repair job ensued.)
It doesn’t matter that I have found Mexicans to be hard-working and resourceful, and I admire the courage of those who have crossed deserts and faced high dangers to get here.
My personal feelings for Mexicans cannot move me to judge that we should give illegal alien Mexicans advantages over our own working-poor American citizens.
Door King, if we had sufficient resources to meet both Mexicans’ and American citizens’ needs, then I would wholeheartedly support accommodating both. But we don’t, so I can’t.
gmc70 and Robert, I’m not promoting violence against Mexicans–I FEAR it. When poor Americans become resentful, when they can’t get jobs at wages that enable them to make ends meet, and see jobs that they used to do, now being done by Mexicans whom these Americans view as criminals who have no right to be here, what do you think is going to happen?
Smegma,
For people who don’t have a medical background, they can look up your chosen nic in a dictionary.
My mind IS fading, but I still remember the term from 35 years ago, which is noteworthy because the only male patients whose protruberances I examined back then were circumcised. I’ve never actually seen any smegma, but far be it from me to dispute the urology-textbooks’ assertion it exists. I first heard the term on a Firesign Theater story, I think it was “Ralph Spoilsport” where the protagonist was reading freeway offramp signs, the one that had a billboard that said, “Shadow Valley Condoms, if you lived here, you’d be home by now.” My fading memory could be wrong. If there are any FT fans out there, perhaps they can clarify the matter.
Smegma, I would have to wonder, contemplating the definition of the nic you have chosen for yourself, not a slur hurled at you by someone else, whether you might have an inferiority complex.
Is smegma entering the general vocabulary? I first encountered it used by James Joyce, and later in a book by Thomas Pyncheon. Now though not common, you run across it. “Head cheese,” is I believe the synonym. Also, I’ve been told armed services unfortunates were detailed to remove said from beneath the foreskins of stallions. I don’t know if the job has an MOS code. Now, if there’s anything else you want to know …..
Door King, you’re mistaken. Many people here know who I am, essentially all the long-resident WEBlog readers and posters, because Apophis prodded me to reveal my identity in order to verify my claim of being a retired medical doctor. He checked my claim and corroborated it.
A nice theory, but it’s like being sued by Walt Disney because someone says something bad about Donald Duck.
But here is Mexico helping us out…the now have a low cost flight carrying soon to be illegals from the Southern part of Mexico to the Border area so they can cross easier. So they are bringin us new illegals to replace the old ones…
http://blog.vdare.com/archives/2007/10/13/migrant-air-flying-illegals-to-the-border/
But here is Mexico helping us out…the now have a low cost flight carrying soon to be illegals from the Southern part of Mexico to the Border area so they can cross easier.
It’s not Mexico helping out illegals. It’s Mexican airlines, many of whom no doubt have U.S. stockholders. What’s a matter? Don’t you like capitalism?
And that bus trip is a bitch. It’ll be interesting to see If I can can catch a flight north with the migrants this year.
Dorking, you’re using defective logic.
Like one time I did something that apparently broke school rules, but as an isolated event didn’t damage anything or anyone. A teacher caught me. After I argued coherently, and beat her in civil debate, her trump argument was, “What if everybody did this?” I decided to concede. Because I could have retorted, “What if everybody insisted that they be 7th grade teachers? America couldn’t function,” but realized if I did this, instead of just letting me go with a non-punitive admonition, this teacher would have been empowered to send me to the principal. She was a drone. I let it go, but pocketed the lesson.
“A nice theory, but it’s like being sued by Walt Disney because someone says something bad about Donald Duck” isn’t a substantive argument, for a number of reasons.
First, you didn’t give any examples of “something bad” said about Donald Duck that could damage Mr. Disney’s reputation.
Secondly, Mr. Disney, as a “public figure”, would have to demonstrate that somebody not only said something false about Mr. Disney, directly, or clearly through reference to Donald Duck, that the speaker/writer made his statements with MALICE, i.e. with deliberate disregard for the truth, which is to say, the accuser had no demonstrable basis to believe that his/her statement(s) impugning Mr. Disney was (were) true, according to a reasonable man standard, but said them anyway. (NY Times v. Sullivan, and subsequent cases.)
Non-public figures can sue for unintentional, negligent defamation, and be awarded damages, or for malicious libel, in which the accuser had no reasonable basis to make a defaming statement agains another person, which invokes punitive damages.
In many states, the issuance of public retraction, in essence the confession, “I made an error that I didn’t mean to make,” absolves the false-accuser of liability. In the instant matter, “Robert” made a false, evil statement, and failed to retract what he said, after being given compelling information that disproved what he said. All he has to do is say that he made a blog-reading error. How hard is that to do?
Door king, if you were a reasonable, fair-minded individual, you would admit that “Robert” made a false accusation of FACT, for which there was zero evidentiary substance. You don’t have to do this. But if you don’t it demonstrates that you are a demagogue whose statements must be weighed by fair-minded readers as potentially being based on ignorance.
Physician heal thyself; you’re nuts.
Let’s play Identify the Nut.
Oct 15 3:44 PM, Door King wrote:”Immigration across the Mexican border is a question of population dynamics and won’t be solved by people who can’t admit biology and human nature supersede law. How well have our drug laws done in preventing drug use/distribution by the way? Biology/human nature always trumps law unless law becomes inhuman. We could just kill them all. Right? Thirty percent would be for it.”
———–3:48 PM Pat Herron wrote:
“human nature supersede law.” Door King
Wow! That’s pretty profound.You just make that up or copy it from somewhere?
It’s also the words of an idiot.
————————4:47 Door King wrote:
“We have laws against pot and people still smoke it, Pat. That’s human nature superceding law. You think the law makes any difference in the way humans behave? If you do, you’re a poor observer. However, I will admit some people follow the rules no matter how idiotic. We call those people Republicans and their religion Fundamentalism.”
——————-
5:50 MPS wrote
(Statements on restricting public service funding for illegal aliens, and using the money to help American citizens…Arguments for not granting automatic citizenship to children whose birth here rests entirely upon criminal entry into America)
__________________________
5:22 PM gmc70 wrote:
“Only good illegal is a dead one”
———————–6:57 Robert wrote:
“when people like MPS say ‘only good illegal is a dead one’ that is absolutely racist hate speech, and perhaps should be construed as a violent threat.
————————————————–So Door King,
What part of “when people like MPS say ‘only good illegal is a dead one’ …absolutely racist hate speech…perhaps should be construed as a violent threat,”
does NOT appear to you to mean that Robert asserted either
A. I said, “Only good illegal is a dead one” ORB. people like me say “only good illegal is a dead one”?
C. And what was the factual basis for Robert to either accuse me of saying “only good illegal is a dead one” or else judge me to be a member of a group of people who say it?
D. What racist hate speech of any kind have I ever said at any time since joining this blog to enable Robert to believe I said “only good illegal is a dead one,” or else I am a member of a group who says it?
E. What grounds did Robert have to associate me with the making of potentially violent threats?
Let’s now review the larger posts and see what we can conclude.
We can clearly see that three people and three people alone made statements about killing people. You were the first.
Door King 3:44: “We could just kill them all.”
gmc70 5:22: “Only good illegal is a dead one.”
Robert 6:57 “when people like MPS say ‘only good illegal is a dead one’ ”
Everyone else was engaged in non-threatening adult discussion. But you three, or maybe you two, or maybe you one, using different nics, injected extreme demagogic histrionics including the matter of murder, which no one else was in any way suggesting.
We may note that the nic “gmc70″ was a not-very-subtle malicious slur against GMC70.
Then to cap it off, Robert vilified me with a despicable false allegation.
Who are the nuts here, or one nut with different nics? Who are the mean-spirited, vindictive, dirty-trick-pulling FANATICS? I’ll leave it to the readers to discern.
You suggest the possibility that you might be an illegal drug user, perhaps a pothead. Your first two posts both mentioned illegal drug use and the futility of trying to use the law to restrict it.
In my young adulthood, marijuana-decriminalization campaigns were popular. People who used pot were vociferous about the stupidness and futility of anti-drug enforcement.
To non-users, it was a topic that was totally irrelevant to their lives so they didn’t bring it up.
But the topic was on the minds of users, because anti-drug-enforcement made it harder to obtain drugs and more expensive than the users thought was “fair”.
I’m not alleging that you use illegal drugs. Perhaps you don’t. I’m just considering that you have used arguments that drug-users I knew in the 70’s routinely made because they viewed the “stupid” drug laws as very relevant to their own personal lives. And I noticed that you didn’t just make the argument once and move on, you reiterated it. Why are “futile” drug laws of sufficient interest to you to motivate you to emphasize the matter?
Moving on, you also said to Pat Herron,
” You think the law makes any difference in the way humans behave? If you do, you’re a poor observer.” Then, ” You think the law makes any difference in the way humans behave? If you do, you’re a poor observer.”
That’s an asinine statement. Any rational adult knows that laws make MAJOR differences in the way humans behave, which is laws’ purpose, i.e. to affect human behavior. For example, if the law did not compel business owners to pay income taxes, under threat of seizure of their property for non-payment, attaching liens to their revenues, and potential incarceration for filing deliberately-falsified tax returns, what business owner would pay taxes, i.e. if the law technically required such, but no penalties were incurred for nonpayment?
If you are driving down Kellogg at 70 mph, and you see a police officer 200 yards ahead of you, do you say, “The law makes no difference in how I behave?” and pass the cop doing 70?
If you did this, and you saw red and blue lights flashing in you rearview mirror, would you say, “The law makes no difference in how I behave?” and just keep on driving? When the siren went on, and the cop ordered you to pull over through his megaphone, would you keep on driving?
Suppose you’re short on money. But you don’t rob a bank because the law DOES make a difference in how you behave. You calculate: Do I need money? Yes. Do I want to go to prison. No.
Do some people cheat on their taxes, or steal other people’s money? Yes. A small minority of people.
Nearly every reader will agree that my preceding statements are OBVIOUS. But the law’s very obvious effect on human behavior was NOT OBVIOUS to YOU the other night, when you said to Pat Herron,
“You think the law makes any difference in the way humans behave? If you do, you’re a poor observer.”
I’ll leave it to readers to consider whether your thinking was impaired.
You also said, “We could just kill them all. Right? Thirty percent would be for it.”
Thirty percent of what? Thirty percent of the people you work with? Of the American population?
What magic hat did you pull that number from? Oh, you just made up a number that looked “scary” and vilified either 1 of every 3 people you know, or 1 out of every 3 Americans.
If you really believed either of these things, there’s a term for your condition: paranoid schizophrenia. In this condition, disease victims’ minds imagine dangers, or bad motivations in others, that simply do not exist.
Then you said, “However, I will admit some people follow the rules no matter how idiotic. We call those people Republicans and their religion Fundamentalism.”
Let’s deconstruct this. First you said ” biology and human nature supersede law.”
You dismissed the law per se as having no relevance to human behavior. This means that in your mind, at least in the state it was in two nights ago, ALL LAWS ARE IDIOTIC, because they exist, but are unrelated to human behavior.
You feel that the “rules”, such as laws, don’t apply to you, or to Democrats, or to Episcopalian Republicans, for that matter.
We can conclude this is how you feel, because you said only Fundamentalist Republicans “follow the rules, no matter how idiotic”, and your other statements clearly demonstrate that you believe laws (government-created rules) per se are “idiotic”.
I believe that there is a term for this in political philosphy: anarchism. In college, there was a term for it, “Hey man, you are really stoned.”
In sum, your thinking the other night can be nicely deconstructed:
“It’s okay for Mexicans to swamp America, because our immigration laws are ‘idiotic’. The Mexicans are going to swamp our country because they don’t obey idiotic American laws, and there is no reason for them to, because American laws are superceded by the Mexicans’ biology/human nature.
“People have a right to be ‘free’ to migrate and live wherever they want to whenever they decide that they want to be in a different place, such as somebody else’s country. And they have a right to use American education and healthcare institutions, with gringos paying for it, and who cares if this causes the institutions to deteriorate from too many users overwhelming resource-provisions. Mexicans have a biology/human nature right to dismantle America. Give it a couple more decades, and we can have Mexico-grade schools with 90% of kids dropping out by age 10 and hospitals that are equivalent to American hospitals of the 1930s. This can’t be stopped. It’s biology/human nature.”
Alas Door King overlooks two other biology/human nature traits, territorialism, and the human tendency to want to maintain a satisfactory way of life. “I grew up in this town. I went to college and came back because this is my home. I and other lifelong residents want our town back.” These are expressions of human nature.
This does not imply violence, i.e. raw human emotion unleashed, is the only restorative. Behavior-modifying rational laws can be enacted, such as Hazelton, PA’s ordinance sanctioning business owners who hire illegal aliens, and landlords who rent housing to them.
Illegal aliens who were looking at the prospect of no jobs or housing, who came 3000 miles to get to Hazelton were starting to think, “I can get a job and housing 100 miles away in New Jersey,” and they would have moved, but a federal judge intervened.
Hazelton welcomes legal immigrants, including people of color from the Caribbean and Brazil. (Brazilians like it because a previous generation of Portuguese immigrants speak a shared language, facilitating transition to American life.) The legal immigrants have followed human nature, moving to the U.S. They also restrain their impulses and obey the law.
Long ago, my hometown had a lot of Mexicans from spring to late fall, working in the fields. But they disappeared in winter. That’s when they went home. I worked with one family whose eight members, down to age 12, made, in today’s dollars over $150,000 for 9 months work for several years in a row. They lived in a cheap, old two bedroom house. They took most of their earnings back to Mexico, and labored for 3 months during winters building a large hacienda. When it was completed, they worked a few more years to build a cash nest-egg to buy cattle for their ranch, and then they said adios to the U.S.
It used to be that border-crossing was a simple matter. Working in the U.S. seasonally and going back home was the norm. We could go back to that system. It’s going to require hard work, but it’s doable.
Some here don’t really understand the severity of the problem.
You need to spend 6 months living ON the border, where I live.You need to spend a considerable amount of time in Mexico, like I have.
The source of the problem in my opinion is the corrupt, elitist Mexican government. The US is the convient dumping ground for what they consider their basura.
10-29-07
U.S Representative Todd Tiahrt,
Your overall record on illegal immigration is among the best in our state. We support your continued efforts to improve our overall system through vehicles other than Amnesty for those who have come illegally.
Our major concern has been that the current laws are not being enforced because there is neither the will nor the resources allocated to control FUTURE immigration once the MAGNET of Amnesty is again out there attracting illegal immigrants like it did following the 1986 version.
Heath Shuler is sponsoring a bill called the “Save act” in the U.S. House of Representatives. Our understanding of this bill is that it is an enforcement only measure that requires all employers to use the currently available E-Verify system. We understand that there are some phased in controls, which in 4-5 years would require verification of all current workers by all employers.
We have always maintained that very few businesses actually want to hire illegal aliens. And we believe that of the minority of businesses that do hire illegal aliens, most do so without knowing it or do so because they feel forced to do it to keep from being run out of business by competitors who ARE hiring illegal aliens.
We encourage you to investigate this bill and consider co-sponsoring this common sense approach. Sometimes it is better to let someone else think it is their idea, and support it than get their support for yours. (Especially when you are in the minority).
At first look, this bill gives businesses a tool they can rely on, and assures them that their competitors won’t get by with hiring illegals, very few illegal aliens will get hired anywhere.
There aren’t enough odd jobs and off-the-books jobs in the underground economy to soak up the estimated 7 million illegal workers in the country. Most illegal aliens will no longer find enough work to support them and their dependents, and most of them will eventually give up their lives of illegality and go home.
There is no better word of mouth advertising than having some return to their homeland and tell their friends and family that they have to use the legal immigration system to work in the USA.
Thanks for your consideration,
10-29-07
U.S Representative Todd Tiahrt,
Your overall record on illegal immigration is among the best in our state. We support your continued efforts to improve our overall system through vehicles other than Amnesty for those who have come illegally.
Our major concern has been that the current laws are not being enforced because there is neither the will nor the resources allocated to control FUTURE immigration once the MAGNET of Amnesty is again out there attracting illegal immigrants like it did following the 1986 version.
Heath Shuler is sponsoring a bill called the “Save act” in the U.S. House of Representatives. Our understanding of this bill is that it is an enforcement only measure that requires all employers to use the currently available E-Verify system. We understand that there are some phased in controls, which in 4-5 years would require verification of all current workers by all employers.
We have always maintained that very few businesses actually want to hire illegal aliens. And we believe that of the minority of businesses that do hire illegal aliens, most do so without knowing it or do so because they feel forced to do it to keep from being run out of business by competitors who ARE hiring illegal aliens.
We encourage you to investigate this bill and consider co-sponsoring this common sense approach. Sometimes it is better to let someone else think it is their idea, and support it than get their support for yours. (Especially when you are in the minority).
At first look, this bill gives businesses a tool they can rely on, and assures them that their competitors won’t get by with hiring illegals, very few illegal aliens will get hired anywhere.
There aren’t enough odd jobs and off-the-books jobs in the underground economy to soak up the estimated 7 million illegal workers in the country. Most illegal aliens will no longer find enough work to support them and their dependents, and most of them will eventually give up their lives of illegality and go home.
There is no better word of mouth advertising than having some return to their homeland and tell their friends and family that they have to use the legal immigration system to work in the USA.
Thanks for your consideration,